Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

On the redesign of a shear pin under cyclic bending loads

M. Smith, F. Fisher, M. Romios, O.S. Es-Said *

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Loyola Marymount University, One LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045-8145, USA

Received 7 November 2005; accepted 7 November 2005

Available online 23 March 2006

Abstract

An integrated motor and gearbox package drives a 3.9 kN flocculator train at a water filtration plant. The 4–20 rpm
output shaft turns the flocculators at 1–5 rpm. Mounted on this shaft is a torque limiting coupling, utilizing a SAE
1040 steel shear pin. Analogous to a fuse in an electrical circuit, this shear pin fails if the flocculator paddles jam, thus
protecting the equipment from overload. With the current design, a shear pin only last about one week. Analysis suggests
that cyclic fatigue, caused by misalignment between driving and driven coupling elements, causes premature pin failure. A
redesigned shear pin made from PH 13-8 Mo stainless steel, processed to improve fatigue resistance, is described.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fatigue; Corrosion; Corrosion fatigue; Fracture toughness; Stress corrosion cracking

1. Introduction

A municipal water filtration plant processes unfiltered ‘‘raw’’ water into filtered and disinfected ‘‘finished’’
water. The treatment involves three steps: disinfection, clarification, and filtration. Clarification involves add-
ing trivalent aluminum or iron salts such as aluminum sulfate or ferric chloride to the water, and gently stir-
ring them to form what is called a ‘‘floc’’. This floc establishes tiny nucleation sites within the water, which
attract suspended solids. When the water is subsequently conveyed to a stilling basin, the coagulated solid par-
ticulates settle slowly to the bottom. The sediment is then collected, dewatered, and discarded. The gentle stir-
ring of the floc is performed by a flocculator (Fig. 1). Immersed in water, the flocculator paddles rotate at a
maximum speed of 5 rpm (typically 1–3 rpm) and are chain driven by a flocculator drive package mounted out
of the water on the deck above. A flocculator drive shear pin protects rotating equipment from excessive tor-
sional loading.
The flocculator drive shear pin fails prematurely after only one week of operation. The cause of failure is
attributed to fatigue bending stresses in the shear pin caused by misalignment and wobble in the flocculator
drive coupling. Stress and fatigue analysis of the shear pin is performed to understand the failure of the pin

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 310 338 2829; fax: +1 310 338 2391.
E-mail address: oessaid@lmu.edu (O.S. Es-Said).

1350-6307/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2005.11.010
 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146 139

Fig. 1. Flocculator, showing chain driven sprocket and stirring paddles.

and to support the material selection and redesign of a new pin. In addition, the corrosive effects occurring in
the coupling are discussed to support material selection and redesign.

2. Failure analysis

The drive package (Fig. 2) consists of a 1.12 kW (1.5 hp), 1750 rpm motor, 87:1 gear reducer package, and a
torque limiting coupling (Fig. 3). The coupling output sprocket is mechanically connected by a 6.833 cm
(2.609 in.) pitch mill chain to a 0.9 m (3 ft) diameter sprocket mounted on the end of the flocculator drive train
(Fig. 1). The coupling utilizes an easily replaceable SAE 1040 steel shear pin to protect the drive if the paddles
jam.
During operation, the coupling becomes corroded by wastewater carried up from the basin below by the
chain. Unfortunately, the shear pin (Fig. 4) fails after as little as a week of operation (approximately
105 cycles). The resulting maintenance effort is unacceptable to the wastewater treatment plant operators.

Fig. 2. Motor and gearbox drive package, showing torque limiting coupling, drive sprocket, and shear pin (shown in the lower left
quadrant of the coupling).
140 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146

Fig. 3. Schematic of the torque limiting coupling.

Fig. 4. Shear pin dimensions.

 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146 141

Failure is much more rapid (often in less than a day) if the bronze bushing in the sprocket becomes worn and
allows the sprocket to wobble excessively. The aim of this study is to analyze the shear pin failure and suggest
alternative designs to increase fatigue life by a factor of 100.
A fairly predictable 100,000 cycle life, a wobbling sprocket, and corrosion strongly suggest that the shear
pin fails from fatigue induced bending stress (Fig. 5). To increase the life of a non-yielding steel shear pin from
105 cycles to, say, 107 cycles, the shear pin strength must be increased approximately 23–50% [1]. To redesign
the existing pin, a stronger pin material is selected, which optimizes the strength/fracture toughness
combination.
Based on these considerations, the analysis method consists of developing deflection and stress relationships
employing the unit load method, estimating pin failure stress and angular deflection magnitude for 105 cycle
life, and redesigning the shear pin to meet these design criteria. The pin must fail in direct shear as intended,
and should be able to withstand some amount of bending fatigue.

2.1. Stress and deflection of the shear pin

The load model for the pin is shown in Fig. 6. The applied moment, M, due to the wobble of the sprocket,
causes a normal bending stress in the shear pin. The model assumes that the bending moment acts at the pin
radial centerline axially centered in its respective restraining hub or sprocket. The slope at the left end of the
shear pin is assumed to be zero and fixed, since it is tightly fit into the drive hub. The other end, tightly fit into
the driven sprocket, bends as the sprocket wobbles. This creates a pure bending stress in the shear pin, which is
greatest at the notch in the center of the pin. The pin is modeled as a cantilever beam of length L3, where L3 is
the assumed point of application of the bending moment (Fig. 6).
The direct shear force on the shear pin is a maximum when the paddle wheels jam, causing the shear pin to
fail as designed. The torque in the coupling is computed from the power of the drive motor, P, using Eq. (1)
[2]. The radius from the center of rotation to the pin is 7.94 cm (3.126 in.) (Fig. 6), which is divided into the
torque, T, to compute the lateral force, F, acting on the pin. This force is used to compute the direct shear
stress, s, in the shear pin using Eq. (2) [2,3]. This shear stress is used as a design criteria of the new shear pin.

Fig. 5. Wobbling sprocket causes bending stress in the shear pin.

142 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146

Fig. 6. Shear pin load model.

P ¼ Tx ð1Þ
where T is the torque (N-m) in the coupling, x is the maximum rotational speed (radians/second) of the cou-
pling, and P is the power (Watts) of the drive motor. And,
F
s ¼ k ts ð2Þ
A
where kts is the theoretical stress concentration factor in shear, F is the lateral force on the pin due to the tor-
que, and A is the minimum cross-sectional area of the shear pin at the notch. The theoretical stress concen-
tration factor in shear for this geometry is 1.3 [4].
To determine the deflection in the shear pin due to the applied bending moment, the unit load method is used
[5]. The strain energy equation for a state of pure bending reduces after partial differentiation to Eq. (3) for the
angular deflection, h. The applied moment, M, is computed from the real load model and oM/oC is computed
from a 1 N-m unit moment [5]. Angular deflection, h, is determined by substituting calculated values for M and
oM/oC into Eq. (3). Since section properties I and A make step changes along the beam, deflection must be
 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146 143

evaluated piecewise over the limits 0–L1, L1–L2, and L2–L3 (Fig. 6). The second area moment for each section
are designated I1, I2, and I3, and their respective diameters are designated D1, D2, and D3.
Z L oM
M oC
h¼ dx ð3Þ
0 EI
where M is the applied moment, C is the unit moment, E is the elastic modulus of the material, and I is the
second moment of area.

2.2. Fatigue of the shear pin

The fatigue analysis is performed assuming the pin undergoes a fully reversed bending moment due to the
wobble in the coupling. The stress life endurance limit for steels can be estimated as 0.504 times the ultimate
strength for steels with ultimate strengths of less than 200 ksi [2]. The endurance limit represents the fatigue
strength at 106 cycles, so the fatigue strength at 105 cycles for the existing shear pin is estimated by plotting the
approximated S–N curve [6]. For this ideal case of a fully reversed bending load, the fatigue strength for a
105 cycle life of the existing shear pin is the maximum bending stress that is experienced by the pin.
Since the fatigue strengths are developed from empirical data of ideal laboratory samples, the true fatigue
strength, Sf, for a mechanical component can be estimated by multiplying the ideal fatigue strength, S 0f , by
modifying factors (Eq. (4)) [2]. The modifying factors are empirical factors that quantify various design, pro-
cessing, reliability, and environmental influences on the fatigue strength [2,5]. The properties of 1040 steel and
the fatigue modifying factors are shown in Table 1. The modifying factors are applied to the fatigue strength
of the existing 105 cycle life shear pin.
S f ¼ k a k b k d k e k c S 0f ð4Þ
where S 0f is the fatigue strength for ideal sample, Sf is fatigue strength for mechanical component, ka is surface
factor, kb is size factor, kd is residual stress factor, ke is environmental effect factor, and kc is the effect factor
due to stress concentration.
A corrosive environment has a severely negative effect on fatigue life [7]. The wastewater with dissolved alu-
minum sulfate and ferric chloride is carried up by the drive chain and can be deposited on the coupling and the
shear pin. Evidence of corrosion was identified on the shear pin, likely due to crevice corrosion occurring in
the small spaces between the coupling and accelerated by the wastewater. Corrosion significantly reduces the
fatigue strength of a material and several corrosion fatigue limits and corrosion fatigue factors have been
defined [7]. Corrosion fatigue factors for carbon steels in hydrogen sulfide solution (acidic solution) are
between 0.25 and 0.45 [7].
In addition to the fatigue strength modifying factors, a fatigue stress concentration factor is considered
since the shear pin in question contains a semicircular notch. The static stress concentration factor, kt, for this
geometry is 1.5 [4]. This static stress concentration factor is related to a fatigue stress concentration factor, kf,
according to Eq. (5) [2,8], where the notch sensitivity factor, q, is 0.8 for steels [2]. The inverse of kf is the fati-
gue strength modifying factor, kc, due to the stress concentration. This is applied to the fatigue strength in Eq.
(4).

Table 1
Mechanical properties and fatigue factors for 1040 steel shear pin and PH 13-8 Mo stainless steel shear pin
Parameter Symbol AISI 1040 PH13-8 Mo Stainless
Pin condition Value Pin condition Value
Ultimate strength Sult Cold drawn 620 MPa (90 ksi) Age hardened 1172 MPa (170 ksi)
Yield strength Sys Cold drawn 550 MPa (80 ksi) Age hardened 1034 MPa (150 ksi)
Surface factor ka Machined 0.85 Polished 1.0
Size factor kb d 6 0.3 in. 1.0 d 6 0.3 in. 1.0
Residual stresses kd Negligible 1.0 Rolled 1.2
Environment factor ke Corrosive 0.45 Negligible 1.0
Stress concentration kc 1/kf 0.714 1/kf 0.714
144 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146

kf  1
q¼ ð5Þ
kt  1

2.3. Corrosion and wear of the hub and bushing

In addition to the effects of corrosion on the shear pin, it is equally important to discuss the corrosive
effects occurring in the coupling at the interface of the sprocket and hub (Fig. 3). The hub and sprocket
are made from low carbon steel, while the bushing between them is made from bronze. The contact
between the carbon steel and the bronze bushing creates a galvanic composition cell of dissimilar metals,
and corrosion proceeds. The galvanic corrosion is accelerated by the strong electrolytes of the aluminum
sulfate and ferric chloride present in the wastewater. An oxygen concentration cell also causes corrosion at
the crevice in the coupling between the hub and sprocket (Fig. 5). This corrosion deteriorates the mechan-
ical fit between the sprocket, hub, and bushing causing the sprocket to wobble, and thus inducing bending
stresses in the shear pin.
The aluminum sulfate, Al2(SO4)3, and ferric chloride, FeCl3, from the floc add to the corrosion rate and
cause the bushing and hub to corrode. Although copper based alloys, such as bronze and brass, are typically
preferred because they resist corrosion in air, water, seawater, and non-oxidizing acids [9], the chemicals used
in the water purification process are much more harsh. Copper based alloys are vulnerable to oxidizing acids,
heavy metal salts, and sulfur [9], such as aluminum sulfate and ferric chloride, which are the primary chemicals
used in water purification and sanitation for removal of suspended solids.
In addition to the corrosion of the hub and bushing interface, wear is also likely causing the sprocket to
wobble on the hub. The bronze bushing is softer than the steel sprocket and if the unit is not regularly main-
tained and lubricated, the excessive wear can lead to the wobbling sprocket. As the sprocket corrodes, the sur-
face between the sprocket and the bushing becomes rough and proliferates the wear. Additionally, fretting
corrosion may be possible at this interface when un-lubricated, further reducing the dimensional fit and caus-
ing looseness and wobble of the coupling.

3. Mechanical redesign and material selection

The deflection of the pin and the direct shear stress in the coupling are used as the basis for the design of the
new pin. In addition, the redesigned pin must have sufficient fracture toughness and stress corrosion cracking
resistance.
The deflection of the shear pin is derived from the bending stress experienced by the pin. The maximum
bending stress is determined from the fatigue strength at 105 cycles, which for the 1040 steel pin is
98,320 kPa (14,270 psi) after the fatigue correction factors are applied. The bending stress is used to find
the applied moment, which is then used to compute the angular deflection from Eq. (3). The angular
deflection equates to a linear deflection of 0.0165 mm (0.00065 in.), which translates to a misalignment
of 0.1016 mm (0.004 in.) at the output sprocket pitch circle. This is not unreasonably large for a mecha-
nism of this type, and the forces necessary to bend the pin are small when compared to the size and
weight of the coupling components and chain loads. The deflection along with the shear stress (Eq.
(2)) required to fail the pin from the coupling torque are used as the design criteria for the new pin.
The new shear pin material must strike a balance between fracture toughness and strength, as well as have
good stress corrosion cracking resistance. Comparison of the stress corrosion cracking fracture toughness ver-
sus yield strength for various high strength steels in a corrosive environment suggests that PH 13-8 Mo stain-
less steel has a high ratio of KISCC/rys [5]. When compared to 1040 steel, PH 13-8 Mo has a much higher yield
strength and a slightly higher critical crack size performance index (KIC/rys) when fracture toughness is plotted
versus yield strength [10]. PH 13-8 Mo is an age hardenable stainless steel that offers very good corrosion resis-
tance in most environments, and good corrosion resistance to strong acids [11]. Typical uses include process-
ing of potentially corrosive liquids such as sewage [11].
The new pin diameter is calculated from the ratio of the shear strength of the 1040 pin to that of the PH 13-
8 Mo stainless steel pin. The shear strength is derived from the maximum shear stress theory, which states that
 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146 145

the material shear strength, Ssy, is 0.5 times the yield strength [2]. From this calculation, the diameter of the
notch for the new pin is 4.24 mm (0.167 in.).
Based on the new pin geometry and the deflection calculated for the existing pin, the bending stress expe-
rienced by the new pin is computed to be 84,190 kPa (12,241 psi).
Lacking specific ideal fatigue strength values for PH 13-8 Mo, SAE Suggested Practice J-1099 [1], a com-
pilation of empirically based design constants, was used to estimate fatigue strength as a percentage of ulti-
mate strength. At 107 cycles, fatigue strength is 29% of the ultimate strength [1].
The endurance limit modifying factors examined in Table 1 for the 1040 steel pin can now be reexamined
for the new pin. The factor governing size/shape is constrained and thus remains the same. The environmental
factor ke is now unity since the PH 13-8 Mo stainless steel is much more corrosion resistant. This leaves ka and
kd governing surface condition and residual stress, respectively. Polishing the new pin will increase ka while
compressive rolling of the pin will add surface compressive stresses, increasing kd [2,5]. The properties of
PH 13-8 Mo stainless steel and the new endurance limit modifying factors are shown in Table 1.
The fatigue strength of the PH 12-8 Mo stainless steel corrected with the new modifying factors is
291,000 kPa (42,240 psi). Comparing this fatigue strength with the 84,190 kPa (12,241 psi) bending stress
amplitude of the new pin reveals that the new material and pin design have fatigue strength much higher than
the fatigue bending stresses that are anticipated.
Finally, the new pin material and design must be checked to verify that it will fail in direct shear from the
coupling torque. From Eq. (2), the shear stress in the new pin is 618,720 kPa (89,800 psi), which is sufficiently
large enough to exceed the 516,750 kPa (75,000 psi) shear yield strength.
In addition to selecting a new material for the shear pin, a new material should also be selected to replace
the plain carbon steel sprocket and hub, and the bronze bushing. The galvanic cell created between the bronze
bushing and the steel causes corrosion in the steel. In addition, the harsh chemicals dissolved in the wastewater
are corrosive to the bronze. These effects cause the misalignment and wobble of the sprocket, which in turn
generate bending stresses in the shear pin. Redesigning the hub, sprocket, and bushing from stainless steel will
reduce the susceptibility of the coupling to corrosion and the severity of the dissimilar metal galvanic corro-
sion. In addition, stainless steel is much less vulnerable to the corrosive chemicals used to treat the wastewater.

4. Discussion

The design of this coupling is something less than an ideal implementation of a torque limiting system for a
mechanical drive. A pin designed to protect equipment from excessive torque loads is failing because of exces-
sive bending loads. If the basic configuration of the drive system remains (i.e., a driving hub, driven sprocket
and a shear pin connecting the two), the design of the system may require fine tuning to minimize sprocket
wobble and thus ensure that the shear pin is primarily loaded in shear.
Reducing the axial wobble to less than the calculated 0.1016 mm (0.004 in.) may be required if the new rede-
signed pin does not solve the problem, or, more likely, if the coupling parts become increasingly corroded and
wobble increases. The trouble is, if the other coupling parts become excessively worn, and bushing clearance
alone must limit wobble, the coupling itself, and not only the shear pin, may require redesign. This is because
of the absolutely minimal aspect (length/diameter) ratio of the bushing. For the size of the bushing, even if
properly lubricated, diametral clearances less than about 0.0762 mm (0.003 in.) would not remain very long,
since this is about minimum to have a running bearing fit not subject to galling and seizure. This translates
into about 0.483 mm (0.019 in.) of sprocket wobble. The extent of the wobble which gets actually transferred
to the pin is dependent on many factors, including pin fit into the hub or sprocket and side loading transferred
to the sprocket by the chain.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The failure analysis shows that the flocculator drive shear pin failed prematurely because of fatigue bending
stresses caused by misalignment and wobble in the flocculator drive coupling. The shear pin was initially
designed for direct shear stress, and was not able to withstand the additional stress induced by the bending
fatigue. In addition, corrosion of the coupling hub deteriorated the mechanical tolerance at the hub and
146 M. Smith et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 14 (2007) 138–146

contributed to the wobble of the sprocket, thus causing the bending stresses in the shear pin. It is recom-
mended that the shear pin be redesigned with PH 13-8 Mo stainless steel, processed to increase the fatigue
strength. Using a stainless steel for the pin will also increase resistance to corrosion fatigue and stress corro-
sion cracking. In addition, the hub, sprocket, and bushing should be replaced with stainless steel to prevent
corrosion of the coupling hub and deterioration of the mechanical fit of coupling parts.

References

[1] 2000 SAE handbook. Technical report on fatigue properties – SAE J1099, Report of the fatigue design and evaluation steering
committee (Revised June 1998). Warrendale (PA): SAE International; 2000.
[2] Shigley JE, Mischke CR. Mechanical engineering design. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1989.
[3] Gere JM, Timoshenko SP. Mechanics of materials. 3rd ed. Boston (MA): PWS Publishing; 1990.
[4] Oberg E, Jones FD, Holbrook HL, Ryffel HH. Machinery’s handbook. 24th ed. New York: Industrial Press; 1988.
[5] Faupel JH, Fisher FE. Engineering design. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981.
[6] Vogwell J. Analysis of a vehicle wheel shaft failure. Eng Fail Anal 1998;5(4):271–7.
[7] Uhlig HH, editor. Corrosion handbook. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1948. p. 581–597.
[8] Hertzberg RW. Deformation and fracture mechanics of engineering materials. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1989.
[9] Davis JR, editor. Corrosion: understanding the basics. Materials Park (OH): ASM International; 2000.
[10] Ashby MF. Materials selection in mechanical design. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann; 1993.
[11] CMS: Cambridge materials selector. Cambridge: Cambridge University Engineering Department; 1992 [computer software].